Apprenticeships

Lord Low of Dalston: To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of the 250,000 new apprentices who are projected to start their apprenticeships by 2020 they expect to be disabled people; and what plans they have to achieve that target.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: The Government are committed to ensuring that all people with learning difficulties or disabilities have full access to apprenticeship learning opportunities and we provide extra funds for appropriate specialist support and equipment. The proportion of young people starting apprenticeships in England who have a learning difficulty or disability was 12 per cent in 2007-08, up slightly from 11 per cent in the previous two years. We have no plans to introduce specific targets for the proportion of disabled people starting or completing apprenticeships. However, we are in discussion with Jonathan Shaw, the Minister for Disability, on ways of increasing employment opportunities for disabled people which will include apprenticeships. We are implementing world-class apprenticeships plans to increase the take-up and completion rates of apprenticeships by learners who are currently underrepresented in the programme. Pilots starting later this year will aim to increase the critical mass of learners in non-traditional occupations to encourage more such applications; and mentoring trials will support atypical apprentices through their experience. The National Apprenticeships Vacancy Matching Service which went live in January this year will help match employers to prospective apprentices and provides the opportunity for learners with disabilities and difficulties to raise any needs they will require for an interview so that they have the opportunity of being fully supported. There will be support available for learners who are not being successful in their applications. In addition, more disabled people are being helped as a result of extending apprenticeships to older learners.

Armed Forces: Aircraft

Lord Astor of Hever: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the C-17 has civil certification.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: No.

Asylum Seekers: Darfur

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Home Office has authorised the redocumentation of anyone claiming asylum as a Darfuri in the past four months; and what their current policy is regarding the redocumentation of people claiming asylum as Darfuris.

Lord West of Spithead: The UK Border Agency has not authorised the re-documentation of any non-Arab Darfuris in the past four months.
	On 9 July 2008, the Government announced the suspension of enforced returns of non-Arab Darfuri asylum seekers to Sudan to await the outcome of the country guidance case by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The UK Border Agency's current policy is not to seek to re-document non-Arab Darfuris until the country guidance case has been decided. The case is expected to be heard between May and July 2009.
	As this policy does not extend to Darfuris of Arab origin, it is possible that the re-documentation of individuals of this group has been authorised in the past four months. Due to the nature of the records kept by the UK Border Agency, to differentiate between such applications and those for Sudanese nationals in general would require detailed examination of individual records at disproportionate cost.

Banking: Fred Goodwin

Lord Taylor of Warwick: To ask Her Majesty's Government why they allowed the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, to receive a pension at the age of 50 when the normal retirement age for men is 65.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government why they allowed the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, to resign from the bank in October 2008, rather than being dismissed.

Lord Myners: The Government were not involved in negotiating and did not give approval to or sign-off Sir Fred Goodwin's pension or the basis of his departure from the company. These matters were determined by members of the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
	In response to questions raised in debate by Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Howard of Rising on 2 March (Official Report, col. 583) I confirmed that no sum relating to Sir Fred Goodwin's pension was mentioned to me on 11 October 2008 and believed I was made aware of a sum a few days later. I can now confirm that I was informed of an estimate of the capitalised value of the pension late on 12 October 2008.
	What I did not know—and only recently became aware of—was that the approval of the proposed pension arrangements by the Remuneration Committee of RBS was based on a decision to treat Sir Fred Goodwin as having retired early at the request of the company, and that this involved an element of discretion which had the effect of significantly increasing his pension. Investigation as to who at RBS was involved in this decision are continuing.

Banks

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they vet the appointments of chairmen and chief executives of banks who (a) trade solely in the United Kingdom, (b) trade partly in the United Kingdom, and (c) are owned by a United Kingdom company and trade in the United Kingdom; if so, when the arrangement was put in place; and how the vetting is carried out.

Lord Myners: Part V of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) provides the Financial Services Authority (FSA) with the power to regulate individuals exercising significant influence on the conduct of a firm's affairs in relation to regulated activities. The FSA requires both chief executives and chairmen of firms authorised by it to be approved. The FSA assesses applications for approved persons status against a "fit and proper" test which considers an individual's:
	honesty, integrity and reputation;competence and capability; andfinancial soundness.
	Since October 2008, the FSA has increased the scrutiny of candidates for significant influence functions (SIF). This scrutiny includes interviewing SIF candidates where appropriate and a greater focus on their personal accountability in post.

Belfast Agreement

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Section 3 of the Declaration of Support in the Belfast Agreement of April 1998 means that the basis for all relationships on the island of Ireland is equality.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: As set out in section 3 of the declaration of support in the Belfast Agreement, the basis of all relationships within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and Ireland and between the UK and Ireland is equality, partnership and mutual respect.

Civil Service: Muslims

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of senior Civil Service staff of the Home Office, UK Border Agency and the panels which advise them are Muslims.

Lord West of Spithead: The proportion of Senior Civil Service staff in the Home Office and its agencies who have declared their religion as Muslim is around 2.5 per cent. Staff in the Home Office and its agencies have an option in our system not to give their religion when they are providing us with personal data.

EU: Galileo Project

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total expenditure on the European Union Galileo global positioning system to date; what is the present estimate of the final cost of the project; and how much of that cost will be met by United Kingdom taxpayers.

Lord Adonis: The European Union (EU) and member states of the European Space Agency (ESA) have jointly funded the design and development of Galileo. Approximately €1.6 billion (£1.1 billion)is committed spend on the design and development of the system. The deployment and operational phase, which follows, will see the Galileo programme achieve full operational capability (FOC). It is currently being procured by the ESA on behalf of the European Commission.
	The total UK commitment to the ESA element of the programme amounts to €168.05 million (£116 million). By the end of 2008 the UK had paid €98.45 million (£68 million) of this. No further contributions are to be made to the project via ESA.
	The next phase of the Galileo programme—the deployment and operation of the system (2010-13)—and all future funding for Galileo will be the responsibility of the EU. The EU funding of Galileo between 2007 and 2013 has been capped at €3.4 billion (£2.3 billion). The European Commission estimates a further £6 billion will be needed for operation and maintenance costs from 2013-30.
	Discussions on how funding after 2013 might be sourced and what elements might come from private and public sources will not take place until the programme has advanced to a later stage. We expect the Commission to bring forward proposals for financing future phases of the programme in 2010.
	Regarding the EU funding for Galileo: the position is that EU member states contribute to the Community budget as a whole and not to individual programmes within it. The UK contributes around 17 per cent of the Community budget or 12.6 per cent after abatement. There is therefore no specific UK contribution to the EU element of the funding for the Galileo programme.
	The above figures are weighted to 2008 economic conditions.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of female genital mutilation in Britain.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been (a) arrested, and (b) prosecuted for carrying out female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years.

Lord West of Spithead: In October 2007 the Department of Health funded the Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development (FORWARD) to undertake a study in collaboration with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and City University Midwifery Department to estimate the incidence of female genital mutilation in England and Wales. The study reveals that nearly 66,000 women with FGM are living in England and Wales.
	The Department of Health have commissioned FORWARD to undertake further research to update these figures.
	To date, neither the Metropolitan Police Service nor the Crown Prosecution Service has a record of any arrests or prosecutions being commenced under either the 1985 or 2003 Acts.

First World War

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty's Government how much they owe to the government of the United States for debts incurred in and around the First World War; and what are the arrangements for repayment.

Lord Myners: At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt owed to the United States amounted to around £850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931 President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all war debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nationals since 1934.
	I also refer the noble Lord to the Answers provided on 17 July 2002 (col. WA 159), 23 October 2002 (col. WA 103-04) and 11 July 2003 (col. WA 66).

Geert Wilders

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the remarks by Lord West of Spithead on 12 February (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 1232—36), what factors were taken into account by the Home Secretary in deciding whether the ban on Geert Wilders entering the United Kingdom would be in accordance with the European principle of proportionality.

Lord West of Spithead: As required by regulation 21(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the Home Secretary took into account the personal conduct of Mr Wilders, illustrated by his statements about Muslims and their beliefs. The Home Secretary considered that his statements were intended to incite racial and religious hatred and that his presence in the UK would, therefore, threaten community harmony and public security in the United Kingdom. As a result she took the view that Mr Wilders' presence in the United Kingdom would constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to fundamental interests of public policy and public security.
	She decided it was proportionate that Mr Wilders be denied admission, despite his position as an elected Member of the Dutch Parliament and the freedom of movement he would normally have as a national of a member state of the EU. The Home Secretary's views were conveyed to the immigration officer who decided to refuse Mr Wilders admission to the UK.

Geert Wilders

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will allow Mr Geert Wilders to visit the United Kingdom in a private capacity.

Lord West of Spithead: Any attempt by Mr Wilders to seek admission to the UK in the future would be decided on its own merits and in the light of the circumstances at that time. Factors that would be considered would include the purpose of his intended visit and any impact on our public policy of preventing extremists intent on stirring up hatred and division from entering the UK.

Government Departments: Food

Lord Hoyle: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is able to publish data showing the proportion of domestically-produced food used by government departments for the period from January 2007 up to the end of 2008.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The second report published on the PSFPI website in November 2008 gives the proportion of domestically produced food used by government departments and also supplied to hospitals and prisons between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008. It can be seen at www.defra .gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/procurement/pdf/psfpi _datareport081125.pdf.

Government: 30-year Rule

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they or their predecessors have authorised the public disclosure of Cabinet papers by way of exception to the 30-year rule; and, if so, in what circumstances.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Papers of meetings of the Cabinet and its committees are held by the Cabinet Office until they are ready for transfer to the National Archives under the 30-year rule, except in a very small number of cases where approval to withhold sensitive information for longer is given by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of his Advisory Council on National Records and Archives.
	The Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations require public authorities to consider on a case-by-case basis all requests for information, and to release requested information unless an exemption or exception applies. The Government believe that there is a very strong public interest in upholding the convention of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet and maintaining the confidentiality of its proceedings.
	Under information rights legislation the Government have released some Cabinet and Cabinet Committee correspondence, and papers of Cabinet Committee meetings. In addition, two extracts from the minutes of Cabinet discussions following the devastating landslide in Aberfan on 21 October 1966 were released early at the National Archives on 2 January 1997 as the Government considered it would be in the public interest that all records relating to Aberfan should be released into the public domain together. The extracts in question would normally have been released in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Where appropriate, Cabinet papers have been disclosed to inquiries.

Guantanamo Bay: Binyam Mohamed

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to offer financial and other assistance to Mr Binyam Mohamed to help his recovery from incarceration in the United States.

Lord West of Spithead: Binyam Mohamed is currently in the UK on temporary admission while his immigration status is being considered. Whilst on temporary admission Mr Mohamed is entitled to the same financial and healthcare services as anyone entering the United Kingdom on that basis.

Guantanamo Bay: Binyam Mohamed

Baroness Neville-Jones: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk Mr Binyam Mohamed poses to national security in the United Kingdom.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been provided with the recent assessment by the Government of the United States of the security risk posed by Mr Binyam Mohamed; and, if so, whether they took it into account in their assessment of the risk Mr Binyam Mohamed would pose to national security when returned to the United Kingdom.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they (a) have taken, and (b) will take, to ensure the safety and security of the public following the return of Mr Binyam Mohamed to the United Kingdom.

Lord West of Spithead: The decision to request the release and return of Mr Mohamed was taken in light of work by the US Government to reduce the number of those detained at Guantanamo with the aim of closing the facility and our wish to offer practical and concrete support to those efforts. I cannot comment on individual cases but, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear in his public statement of the 23 of February: "In reaching this decision we have paid full consideration to the need to maintain national security and the Government's overriding responsibilities in this regard".

Guantanamo Bay: Binyam Mohamed

Baroness Neville-Jones: To ask Her Majesty's Government what conditions were attached to Mr Binyam Mohamed's permission to (a) return to, and (b) stay in, the United Kingdom.

Lord West of Spithead: We do not discuss the immigration status of individuals. However, as with any foreign national, consideration will be given as to whether their presence in the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good and, as always, all appropriate steps will be taken to protect national security.

Human Rights

Lord Evans of Watford: To ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile the fact that British nationals who are not British citizens do not have a right to enter the United Kingdom with the right of nationals to enter their country of nationality, set out in Article 3 of protocol four to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord West of Spithead: Only persons with the right of abode in the UK under Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971, being British citizens and certain Commonwealth citizens, are free to enter and remain in the UK without being subject to immigration control.
	British nationals without the right of abode do not enjoy a right as set out in the Protocol four of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is because the UK has signed but not ratified Article 3 of Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The protocol was signed in 1963 but not subsequently ratified because of the potential conflict with our domestic law in relation to the issue of British passports and the acquisition of a right of abode by categories of British nationals who do not currently have that right.
	British nationals continue to be admitted freely to the United Kingdom on production of a United Kingdom passport issued in the United Kingdom and Islands or the Republic of Ireland prior to 1 January 1973, unless their passport has been endorsed to show that they are subject to immigration control. British nationals may also naturalise or register as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 and therefore acquire the right of abode in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971.

Human Rights

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can refuse to pay the compensation awarded by the European Court of Human Rights to Mr Abu Qatada and others; and, if so, whether they will.

Lord West of Spithead: Her Majesty's Government are obliged under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 41 (just satisfaction) to pay compensation awarded by the European Court of Human Rights. Failure to pay the full amount of any such compensation, without good reason, would be a breach of our obligations under the convention.

Internet: Broadband

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to stimulate additional broadband networks beyond existing providers.

Lord Carter of Barnes: The UK has one of the most competitive broadband markets in Europe as a result of both infrastructure competition and, where appropriate, competition through regulatory intervention. Under Digital Britain, we will be looking to establish a government-led strategy group to assess the necessary demand side, supply-side and regulatory measures to underpin existing market-led investment plans, and to remove barriers to the timely rollout, beyond those declared plans, to maximise market-led coverage of Next Generation broadband.

Internet: Security

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to secure an acceleration in the growth of public key cryptography to enhance security in United Kingdom internet commerce.

Lord Carter of Barnes: The Government believe that the choice of security technologies is a matter for the companies concerned. Advice made available to those companies has emphasised the importance of good risk management and the selection of appropriate controls. Clearly, cryptography has an important role to play and public key cryptography has an increasing role to play in the authentication of parties in high value transactions.
	The Government have passed legislation that enables the use of these technologies. The Electronic Communications Act of 2000 is part of the legislative framework, along with the Electronic Signatures Regulations and the E-Commerce Regulations (both 2002), intended to support electronic communications and transactions.
	The Act led to the creation of tScheme (www.tScheme.org.uk) which is the independent, industry-led, self-regulatory scheme set up to create strict assessment criteria, against which it will approve trust services. BERR actively participates in the work of tScheme, particularly its efforts to promote wider take up.

Licensing: Lap Dancing

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will (a) amend the Policing and Crime Bill so that the new regulation of lap dancing and other sexual encounter venues is mandatory for local authorities; and (b) remove the exemption from that regulation for venues hosting lap dancing less frequently than once a month.

Lord West of Spithead: The Government are confident that the provisions in the Policing and Crime Bill to reclassify lap-dancing clubs as sex-encounter venues will give local communities the necessary powers to control the number and location of lap-dancing clubs.
	However, in the light of concerns raised during the Committee stage in the House of Commons regarding the exemption and optional nature of the provisions, the Government have agreed to look into these issues further and are currently considering whether any amendments are required.

Ministry of Defence: Operating Costs

Lord Astor of Hever: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will break down, in near cash terms, the figures in the tables in note 24, Notes to the Statement of Operating Costs by Departmental Aim and Objectives, of the Ministry of Defence's annual report and accounts 2007—08.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: The expenditure in the notes requested is expressed in total resource costs terms. Near-cash expenditure is not separately identified in the final resource accounts or the centrally held supporting records and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NHS: Pharmaceutical Services

Earl Howe: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make provision for pharmacy contractors to appeal against pharmaceutical needs assessments carried out by primary care trusts as set out in the Health Bill; and, if so, what form such an appeal process will take.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether provision will be made for an appeal process where (a) a primary care trust has failed to identify a service need in its pharmaceutical needs assessment (PNA), or (b) a primary care trust decides that a particular pharmacy application will not meet the need for services as set out in its PNA; and, if so, what form such an appeal process will take.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the future role of the NHS Litigation Authority with regard to provisions in the Health Bill relating to pharmaceutical needs assessments.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what mandatory parameters primary care trusts will be obliged to take into account when determining their pharmaceutical needs assessments as set out in the Health Bill.

Lord Darzi of Denham: We do not consider it appropriate to award specific appeal rights to specific parties in respect of the pharmaceutical needs assessments (PNAs) carried out by primary care trusts (PCTs). Instead, the Health Bill proposes that regulations will set out specific matters to which a PCT must adhere when formulating its assessment. Such matters must include the information to be contained in these assessments and may, in particular, make provision requiring consultation with specified persons about specified matters, the manner in which an assessment is to be made and matters to which a PCT must have regard when making an assessment. Consequently, we do not consider that PCTs will usually fail to identify service needs in their assessments since the Bill already contains powers to enable the regulations to make particular provision as to the pharmaceutical services to which their assessment must relate and to consult as required.
	If a PCT subsequently failed to identify a service need, did not adequately address how such needs were already being met locally or otherwise did not comply with the requirements of the relevant regulations then we would expect the PCT or strategic health authority to identify this and for the PCT to take appropriate action to correct the failure.
	The Health Bill contains provisions to enable the Secretary of State for Health to set out in regulations the circumstances in which a PCT must make a new assessment. It would also be open to an aggrieved person to challenge the adequacy of a PCT's assessment of pharmaceutical needs through the courts by means of a judicial review application.
	We would expect the regulations to set out the rights for parties to appeal decisions of PCTs not to grant pharmaceutical applications using the existing powers in the National Health Service Act 2006 and to follow the procedures currently used in such cases. The NHS litigation authority is constituted to hear appeals of such decisions and its procedures are well established so we anticipate that it will continue to hear appeals when the new test is brought into effect. Where the NHS litigation authority considers that the PCT's assessment of local pharmaceutical needs did not comply with prescribed requirements and that, as a result of this, the PCT would have been unable to undertake a proper assessment of whether or not to grant the application, then it would be open to it to make such a finding. In such a circumstance, the PCT would need to review its PNA and reconsider the application accordingly.
	Further information about the likely content of regulations relating to PNAs is given in the Explanatory Notes and supplementary information on secondary legislation accompanying the Health Bill. In summary, the regulations must set out the minimum information requirements which each assessment must contain and the procedures for publication and undertaking a new assessment. For example, the regulations might stipulate that a PNA must contain information on the demography of the people in its area and any seasonal trends or variations, as well as longer-term population projections and age profiles. They might also stipulate, for example, that PCTs must undertake a new assessment where important new health data, trends in disease or evidence of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of certain types of service emerge.
	The regulations might also include the kinds of pharmaceutical services which the PNA must relate to, for example, the provision of certain services such as reviews of patient medication and clinical support for patients starting medication to treat a long-term condition.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any guidance is issued to central government departments on dealing with petitions submitted to them by the public.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: No central guidance is issued. Individual departments have responsibility for the handling of petitions submitted to them.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answers by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon on 6 February (WA 156—57) and 9 February (WA 168), whether they have any plans or have had any discussions about requiring central government departments and the No. 10 Downing Street e-petition scheme to comply with the requirements in Part 1, Chapter 2, of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: This is a matter for individual departments that have responsibility for the handling of petitions submitted to them.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many petitions HM Treasury has received in 2007—08 and 2008—09; what steps they have taken to publicise them; and, if they have not taken any such steps, whether they will put the text of the petitions received and the number of signatures in the Library of the House.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what HM Treasury's procedure is for receiving, acknowledging, dealing with and responding to petitions that it receives from members of the public.

Lord Myners: Information is not kept centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate costs. There are no arrangements for generally publicising petitions.
	H M Treasury deals with each petition, and other representation received, on a case-by-case basis as to receipt and processing and response.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many petitions the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs received in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008; what steps the department has taken to publicise them; and whether they will put the text of the petitions received and the number of signatures in the Library of the House.

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government what procedures the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has for receiving, acknowledging, dealing with and responding to petitions that it receives from members of the public.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The ASK Defra section of the Defra website uses the No. 10 e-petitions system. Defra e-petitions are sent to the No. 10 website where they are logged and responded to. Open and closed petitions and the Government response can be viewed on the No. 10 website.
	Electronic environmental petitions are publicised on the No. 10 website. Records show 602 petitions in 2007 and 833 petitions in 2008.
	Defra does not hold central records of petitions received on paper. Petitions are received either by the relevant Minister or by policy units, as part of stakeholder engagement. The petition organiser will receive a response.
	Increasingly. organisations are using campaigning postcards—these are received centrally. 70,000 postcards on 101 campaigns were received in 2007 and 125,000 postcards on 97 campaigns in 2008.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many petitions the Home Office received in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008; what steps the department has taken to publicise them; and whether they will place the text of the petitions received and the number of signatures in the Library of the House.

Lord West of Spithead: The Home Office does not maintain central records of the number of petitions received, and the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. No arrangements are made to publicise the information contained in them, and there are currently no plans to place details of petitions received in the Library of the House.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government what procedures the Home Office has for receiving, acknowledging, dealing with and responding to petitions that it receives from members of the public.

Lord West of Spithead: No special arrangements exist for receiving petitions from members of the public. All petitions received in the Home Office are acknowledged. Following receipt they are allocated to the policy unit best able to deal with the subject matter of the petition. They would normally reply direct to the petition organiser within 20 working days.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many petitions the Ministry of Justice received in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008; what steps the Ministry has taken to publicise them; and whether they will place the text of the petitions received and the number of signatures in the Library of the House.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Justice does not record the number of petitions it receives separately from other correspondence. There are no plans at present to either publicise the petitions it receives or to place copies in the Library of the House.

Petitions

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government what procedures the Ministry of Justice has for receiving, acknowledging, dealing with and responding to petitions that it receives from members of the public.

Lord Bach: Petitions may be delivered to the headquarters building of the Ministry of Justice or sent there by post. Correspondence is recorded on the department's management system, assigned to the most appropriate officials and monitored to ensure that a detailed response is sent within 15 working days.

Police

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up a review of single-issue organisations within the Metropolitan Police and other police forces to consider whether they affect the provision of unified police services where all staff are treated equally regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Lord West of Spithead: An independent review of the national police diversity staff support associations (DSSAs) is taking place. The national DSSAs help the Home Office and key policing partners to deliver equality and diversity outcomes for the service. The main aims of the review are to identify the benefits of the national DSSAs to key policing partners; how the national DSSAs may be used to best effect; and the most appropriate level of support each of the policing partners can provide.
	The focus of the review is on national DSSAs rather than the local equivalents.

Police: Discrimination

Lord Ouseley: To ask Her Majesty's Government how the discontinuation of national equality targets for the police service will affect efforts to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity; and how future progress will be monitored and measured.

Lord West of Spithead: The policing Green Paper reinforces the need to increase local responsibility for police performance. It will now be for each police authority to set race and gender targets, in conjunction with its force, and involve police officers, police staff and local communities. National oversight will be maintained in particular through the inspection of workforce issues in 2010 by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

Police: Northern Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon on 24 November 2008 (WA 249—50), how many prosecuting Police Service of Northern Ireland inspectors were replaced by the 220 extra Northern Ireland Public Prosecution Service legally qualified staff recruited between 2005 and 2008; and what the estimated extra annual costs are.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The figure of 220 refers to all additional PPS staff, both legally qualified and non-legally qualified, recruited over the period.
	I am informed by the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) that the establishment figure for prosecuting inspectors was 22 inspectors and two chief inspectors. These were supported in the central process offices by a range of staff whose complement as set out during the criminal justice review was seven sergeants and 80 to 90 support staff.
	Out of a current total of 572 staff in the PPS (and excluding the director and the deputy director), there are currently 171 legally qualified members of staff in the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) of whom 102 hold the grade of public prosecutor. It is this grade, currently B1 grade, of public prosecutor which is responsible, broadly stated, for carrying out the work previously carried out by the prosecuting police inspectors from the PSNI.
	It is not, however, possible to make a direct comparison between the figures. The aim of the criminal justice review's recommendations on bringing all prosecutions under the aegis of an independent body, brought into effect in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, was to ensure that decisions on cases at all levels of seriousness were made against consistently-applied criteria by legally-qualified staff. In addition to the responsibility for deciding on and progressing prosecutions, the Public Prosecution Service took on responsibility for tracking the progress of cases after charge or receipt of a report from the investigator, including requesting further information and investigations; and for providing advice to investigators at pre-charge stages of the process, for example on evidence needed and appropriate offences to be charged.
	The criminal justice review also noted the increasing complexity of even less serious cases and the increasing significance of human rights issues, both of which have impacted on the resourcing of the PPS.

Prisons: Offender Managers

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many offender managers are in post in the Prison Service; and what are their maximum and average case-loads.

Lord Bach: Offender managers are Probation Service staff who are probation officers, senior practitioners, senior probation officers and professional development assessors. Latest available figures are that there are 508, full-time-equivalent, offender managers working within Prison Service establishments. Information on the maximum and average case-loads is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by means of a manual survey.

Railways: Disused Lines

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made by the British Rail Residual Property Board in disposing of the disused railway line between Colne and the former West Riding County Council boundary; and whether they will protect the line for reinstatement in the future.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice and assistance they have given or will offer to Lancashire County Council about purchasing the railway line between Colne and the former West Riding County Council boundary (a) to protect it for reinstatement, (b) to maintain it in the meantime, or (c) to create a multi-user recreational route.
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have held with (a) Lancashire County Council and (b) the sustainable transport charity, Sustrans, on the future of the disused railway line between Colne and Skipton.

Lord Adonis: A consultation was undertaken in 2008 by BRB (Residuary) Ltd under the guidance issued to the company by Ministers on the disposal of its surplus property. The results of that consultation identified a number of local aspirations for the site, including the possible restoration of rail services or for use as a footpath or cycleway. These are local proposals and for that reason BRBR's Property Review Group concluded that the land should be offered to Lancashire County Council for it to decide the best use of the land.
	Terms were quoted for the sale of the land to the county council on 31 July 2008 and it needs to respond quickly by engaging with BRB (Residuary) Ltd to discuss the nature of the structures on the route and terms for its acquisition, if its future use for community activities is to be secured.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 24 February (WA 73), whether the Secretary of State exercised the power in Section 69(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in Pontefract in 1984.

Lord Adonis: It is not the policy of the Department for Transport to retain records on such matters dating back as far as 1984. A search carried out by officials at the department confirmed that no records on this subject are held.

Royal Bank of Scotland: Entertainment Budget

Lord Northbrook: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual entertainment budget for the Royal Bank of Scotland; what that budget is spent on; and how much of the budget is spent on sports personalities.

Lord Myners: That is a matter for the board of RBS.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many penalty notices have been issued to people taking photographs or filming within areas restricted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 in each year since that Act came into force.

Lord West of Spithead: We are not aware of any penalty notices having been issued in such circumstances and would be unable to identify any separately from the statistics which are kept on penalty notices.

Sri Lanka

The Earl of Sandwich: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of situation in Sri Lanka, they anticipate new applications for asylum from the Tamil community; and what new instructions they have given to consulates.

Lord West of Spithead: All asylum claims received in the UK including those from Tamils are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with UK international obligations against the background of the latest available country information. If an applicant demonstrates a need for international protection, asylum is granted. If their application is refused, they have a right of appeal to the Asylum Immigration Tribunal. In this way we ensure that we provide protection to those asylum seekers who need it. We will continue to take Sri Lankan asylum decisions on a case-by-case basis in light of the most current situation.

Terrorism: Finance

Baroness Warsi: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 12 February (WA 237—38), how the £2.7 million allocated by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism for 2008—09 will be spent; and how its effectiveness will be monitored.

Lord Bach: The Home Office's Office for Security and Counter Terrorism allocated £2.7 million to the National Offender Management Service in 2008-9 to support the delivery of a programme of work to address the risks associated with violent extremism and radicalisation. This programme includes improved intelligence gathering; training and awareness-raising for staff; support for chaplaincy teams; and work to research and develop appropriate interventions. The programme is reviewed by senior officials and by Ministers on a regular basis.